HOMOSEXUALITY

I searched and cannot find an answer to this question that I've asked 3 times now.

Would your position be reversed if the Bible made no mention whatsoever
of homosexuality? Or even said it was perfectly acceptable?

Hey, Ironwheelchair,

He has family over. Give it a rest for a bit. k?

...and please stop playing what if's with the bible. The bible "is", please deal with it. Not some half baked what if green unicorn had leprechaun baby stuff. It is so third grade. We as Christians simply accept the bible and do not wish to play games about it.

He has family over but is still posting on this site and dodging questions. Thanks for
adding nothing to the discussion yet again.

No, that doesn't answer the question.

Since all verses about homosexuality are in the old testament but none of
you follow any of the other OT laws this is a dead giveaway that you all
are just prejudiced against homosexuality because you think it's gross.

That's where you are wrong (obviously).

But your comment has nothing to with what I wrote. You want to discuss the question what if 'the Bible made no mention whatsoever of homosexuality,' but frankly I think that's a waste of my time (or anyone else's for that matter). It IS in the Bible, God is clear about it, you can either accept that or reject it, fact is that with Him there's 'no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' Maybe YOU'RE the one that's predjudiced btw, towards christians. We base our opinion on homosexuality on the Bible because we take God's Word seriously, not because we think homosexuality is gross. It doesn't really matter what I think of it, it matters what GOD thinks of it.

Actually the translation in the Bible is unclear. Here is the proof.
Would Jesus Discriminate? - Israel's Holiness Code. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13)
Would Jesus Discriminate? - No fems? No fairies? (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10)

Are you still going to try to justify your prejudice against gay people now knowing
that the Bible has been mistranslated and misinterpreted?

Can anyone please point to verses where Jesus specifically addresses the issue
of homosexuality?

Read the first chapter of Romans, it might not actually say the word homosexual

[h=3]Romans 1:16-17[/h]New International Version (NIV)

[SUP]16 [/SUP]For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. [SUP]17 [/SUP]For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”


[h=3]Romans 1:18-32[/h]New International Version (NIV)

[h=3]God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity[/h][SUP]18 [/SUP]The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [SUP]19 [/SUP]since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.[SUP]20 [/SUP]For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.[SUP]22 [/SUP]Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [SUP]23 [/SUP]and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. [SUP]25 [/SUP]They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.[SUP]27 [/SUP]In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. [SUP]29 [/SUP]They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, [SUP]30 [/SUP]slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; [SUP]31 [/SUP]they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. [SUP]32 [/SUP]Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Now this does not just include Homosexual, or Lesbian, this includes not loving another, in taking away another's free will. Notice God gave us up to a depraved mind, God does not want anyone to harm anyone else period, and we all do somehow someway, by being Dogmatic selfish in our interpretations and not loving our neighbor as God loves us best shown in 1 Cor. 13:4-13, God's type of love that God desires for us all to have if we are willing to have this, ask God and I am sure God will show us what loving all unconditionally is. Then each one of us will make sound decisions on truth and be willing to love as God does.
Anyway there is your answer in Romans

God decided not to be prejudice, you are correct and in light of that through Christ, I am forgiven 100% as the world has been reconciled as well 100%.
So in light of this fact of knowing this are we to take advantage of this? Or appreciate it so deeply, that we harm no one, including our own wife's, which are harmed by man, taking away their free choice in having sex, driven by that puberty which is not convenient.
So down to the bottom line what was sex between a man and a woman made for?
Was it to pro-create?
Now when God made Adam and Eve, was there ever made Adam and Steve, or is this just a part of the fall?
Sex whether between a man or a woman was never meant to be harmful, and man is driven by puberty from his flesh, and all kinds of harm to others have come from this, whether hetero-sexual, homo-sexual. or lesbian
Tell me does a little temporary pleasure really help? Especially when it takes control as it does to the point of harming others?

Here's one of the many refutations to the main study you sited:

"The majority of these studies are so far-fetched that few people give them much credence, except those who turn to the popular media for their “truth.” But, as Proverbs 18: 17 says, “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” With that in mind, let’s consider the validity of these studies. Simon LeVay and the INAH-3

Neuroanatomic (or brain structure) research hoping to secure a biological determinant to homosexuality seemed to reach its zenith in 1991 when Simon LeVay published “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men” in the respected journal Science. He studied the brains of 41 corpses, including 6 women, 19 homosexual men, and 16 men presumed to be heterosexual. LeVay examined a portion of the hypothalamus (INAH-3), which is a small segment of the brain structure. He reported that the INAH-3 was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women and twice as large in heterosexual men as in the homosexual ones. What did LeVay deduce from all of this? That “sexual orientation has a biological substrate” because if the brains of homosexual men were closer in size to the brains of women than the brains of heterosexual men, then of course gay men must be more biologically like women. Even the simplest analysis of LeVay’s methodology quickly uncovers numerous methodological errors. LeVay himself admits that his most glaring problem is that all 19 of the subjects identified as homosexual had died from AIDS complications. Is it possible, then, that the size difference in their hypothalamuses was caused by their illness rather than their homosexuality? In fact, that’s exactly what Dr. William Byne suggested. He found that LeVay did not “adequately address the fact that at the time of death virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments. Thus, it is possible that the effects on the size of the INAH-3 that he attributed to sexual orientation were actually caused by the hormonal abnormalities associated with AIDS. But we don’t have to take anyone else’s word for what LeVay’s research doesn’t prove; he’s already spoken quite clearly on the subject. “I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay,” he admitted. “I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” Even more emphatically, LeVay states that, “time and again I have been described as someone who ‘proved that homosexuality is genetic’… I did not.”

These are facts of the 'test sample', and quotes from the researcher, - (Simon LeVay): himself.

Did you read that?

"Dr. William Byne suggested. He found that LeVay did not “adequately address the fact that at the time of death virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments. Thus, it is possible that the effects on the size of the INAH-3 that he attributed to sexual orientation were actually caused by the hormonal abnormalities associated with AIDS."

Don't let facts get in the way of your argument; - Tracey(Billets for homosexuals).

Here is LeVay addressing his own work:

But we don’t have to take anyone else’s word for what LeVay’s research doesn’t prove; he’s already spoken quite clearly on the subject. “I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay,” he admitted. “I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” Even more emphatically, LeVay states that, “time and again I have been described as someone who ‘proved that homosexuality is genetic’… I did not.”

Got that, Jack?

I didn't cite LeVay

you mean like the fact I didn't cite LeVay?

I answered the scientific 'study' that was brought to my attention.
Same difference.
Let me pull up some you cited then, (since they were all after LeVey's work).

Well, your first reference certainly was challenging. - "Does the Hair Whorl pattern delineate sexual preference."

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythhairwhorl.html

Honestly, I hope you have better references than this for genetically based sexuality. (This is embarrassing!)

Perhaps that was a bad, (or cheap), reference.
I shall proceed to the next:

Scientific analysis by James E. Phelan, LCSW, BCD
NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee;
He writes:

"...........The authors suggest that these factors could include prenatal effects, idiosyncratic experiences, unequal parental treatment, interactions with siblings, or influences outside the family (e.g., teachers and peers). They go on to suggest that, whatever the specific environmental factors were, they seemed not to overlap much at the population level with the environmental factors underlying Neuroticism or Psychoticism levels, given the very low environmental correlations found. The authors admit that this does not discount the possibility that, in individual cases, an environmental influence during development could lead to a nonheterosexual orientation as well as psychiatric vulnerability.
The authors -- unable to give a definitive answer to whether or not homosexuality is genetically caused -- made a plea that further research be conducted, and stated that if there is a biological correlate of both sexual orientation and psychiatric vulnerability, it might be more clearly observed in brain imaging research.
The authors state clearly,"Caution" indeed. Another key word they used is "likely," but in reality, their estimate of "likelihood" is not definitive. Even those correlates that were discovered (e.g. gender nonconformity), do not explain a genetic basis in totality, as environmental factors also have been observed in some cases (Zucker & Bradley, 1995).
If noncommon environmental factors accounted for more than 50%, and the genetic factors were less, than this in itself shows that the genetic contribution was not 100% and therefore cannot give a "definitive yes" answer to the question "Are people born gay?" Erratic, noncommon (i.e., idiosyncratic) environmental factors are predominant, and this finding is significant.
It should also be pointed out that the finding of elevated psychoticism done in such a standard way is almost unique in the modern literature. Although historically it has been clear that some elements of psychoticism have been associated with various subpopulations of homosexually oriented people, older studies lack the rigor of the current paper. While it is more common to find older papers reporting neurotic aspects of homosexually oriented people, this current paper uses a more general client population and is better controlled methodologically.
The NARTH Journal of Human Sexuality (2009), explored the extensive evidence for increased neuroticism among homosexually oriented people. The Zietsch et al. paper is important in that it adds psychoticism as well as neuroticism (in the particular meaning given both terms by the EPQ-R and others) to the surprisingly long list of ills experienced by homosexually oriented people to a significantly greater extent than heterosexuals."

Another sterling example of being sure about absolutely nothing.
I shall proceed no further as these references have already become tiresome.